Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eitan Azaria


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. All delete !votes withdrawn, including nominator (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Eitan Azaria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single sentence, plus infobox, entirely based on statistical data so it fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ミラP 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ミラP 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ミラP 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't even have an article in Hebrew Wikipedia. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NFOOTY by leaps and bounds - if someone could do a search in Hebrew I'm sure we can get this past WP:GNG. I added two English-language sources to help flesh out the article (though one is a bit more promotional than would be my preference, but it's true.) SportingFlyer  T · C  06:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per SportingFlyer, substantial career meeting NFOOTBALL, I refuse to believe there are no Hebrew sources out there to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 14:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. After the work done by SportingFlyer, I agree that the article should be kept so I've struck out my original statement. Could someone please close the discussion? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a delete !vote, so this'll have to run its course unless agrees to withdraw their !vote as well. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course. Sorry, happy to leave it with you. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep after the nomination withdrawn. I agree with SportingFlyer.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.